DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“one or more memory processing devices to” in claim 11
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the set of one or more processing devices" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The prior recitation was to “a set of one or more memory processing devices” in line 3.
Claims 12-17 depend from claim 11 and incorporate the same deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ummethala et al. US 2022/0066411 (“Ummethala”).
Ummethala discloses:
A method comprising:
identifying data associated with a first process performed for one or more substrates at a manufacturing system (e.g., Fig. 6 #610: “Receive data associated with processing a set of substrates at a manufacturing system according to a first process recipe”);
determining, based on the identified data, an amount of drift of a first set of metrology measurement values for the one or more substrates following a completion of at least one of the first process or a second process from a set of target metrology measurement values (e.g., Fig. 6 #616: “Determine, from the one or more outputs of the machine learning model: an amount of drift of a first of metrology measurement values for the first set of substrates from a target metrology measurement value”);
determining one or more modifications to a process recipe for the second process in view of the determined amount of drift (e.g., Fig. 6 #616: “Determine…process recipe modification data identifying one or more modifications to the process recipe”); and
updating the process recipe for the second process based on the determined one or more modifications (e.g., Fig. 6 #620: “Update the process recipe based on a respective modification”, [0077]: “At block 620, processing logic updates the process recipe based on the identified modification. For example, the processing logic can [update] one more operations of the process recipe for the subsequent substrates to be processed at the manufacturing system”).
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the amount of drift of the first set of metrology measurement values from the set of target metrology measurement values comprises:
providing the identified data as input to a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is trained to predict metrology measurement values for substrates processed at the manufacturing system (e.g., Fig. 6 #612: “Provide the received data for processing the set of substrates as input to a trained machine learning model”); and
obtaining one or more outputs of the machine learning model (e.g., Fig. 6 #614: “Obtain output(s) from the machine learning model”).
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the machine learning model is a variational auto encoder model (e.g., [0049]).
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the first process is performed for a first layer of each of the one or more substrates, and wherein the second process is performed for a second layer of each of the one or more substrates (e.g., [0069]).
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more modifications to the process recipe for the second process are further determined in view of additional data comprising one or more metrology measurement values associated with another substrate processed according to the second process at the manufacturing system (e.g., Fig. 6 #616: “Determine…process recipe modification data identifying one or more modifications to the process recipe and, for each of the modifications, and indication of a level of confidence that a respective modification to the process recipe satisfies a drift criterion for a second set of substates”).
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a second set of metrology measurement values for a first layer of at least one of the one or more substrates, wherein the second set of metrology measurement values are generated for the first layer of the at least one of the one or more substrates following a completion of a substrate process for the first layer of the substrate according to the updated process recipe (e.g., Fig. 6, [0049], [0077]); and
updating at least one of the updated process recipe or another process recipe for a third process in view of the identified second set of metrology measurement values (e.g., [0049], [0077], the recipe update process is repeated for each subsequent set of substrates that is to be processed after the current substrate).
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the first process comprises at least one of a chemical mechanical polishing process, an etching process, or a deposition process (e.g., [0052], [0069]).
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the first process comprises a chemical mechanical polishing process and the second process comprises one or more first operations of a lithography process (e.g., [0052], [0069]).
11. A system comprising:
a memory (e.g., Fig. 1); and
a set of one or more memory processing devices coupled to the memory (e.g., Fig. 1), the set of one or more processing devices to:
identify data associated with a first process performed for one or more substrates at a manufacturing system (e.g., Fig. 6 #610: “Receive data associated with processing a set of substrates at a manufacturing system according to a first process recipe”);
determine, based on the identified data, an amount of drift of a first set of metrology measurement values for the one or more substrates following a completion of at least one of the first process or a second process from a set of target metrology measurement values (e.g., Fig. 6 #616: “Determine, from the one or more outputs of the machine learning model: an amount of drift of a first of metrology measurement values for the first set of substrates from a target metrology measurement value”);
determine one or more modifications to a process recipe for the second process in view of the determined amount of drift (e.g., Fig. 6 #616: “Determine…process recipe modification data identifying one or more modifications to the process recipe”); and
update the process recipe for the second process based on the determined one or more modifications (e.g., Fig. 6 #620: “Update the process recipe based on a respective modification”, [0077]: “At block 620, processing logic updates the process recipe based on the identified modification. For example, the processing logic can [update] one more operations of the process recipe for the subsequent substrates to be processed at the manufacturing system”).
12. The system of claim 11, wherein to determine the amount of drift of the first set of metrology measurement values from the set of target metrology measurement values, the set of one or more processing devices is to:
provide the identified data as input to a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is trained to predict metrology measurement values for substrates processed at the manufacturing system (e.g., Fig. 6 #612: “Provide the received data for processing the set of substrates as input to a trained machine learning model”); and
obtain one or more outputs of the machine learning model (e.g., Fig. 6 #614: “Obtain output(s) from the machine learning model”).
13. The system of claim 12, wherein the machine learning model is a variational auto encoder model (e.g., [0049]).
16. The system of claim 11, wherein the first process is performed for a first layer of each of the one or more substrates, and wherein the second process is performed for a second layer of each of the one or more substrates (e.g., [0069]).
17. The system of claim 11, wherein the one or more modifications to the process recipe for the second process are further determined in view of additional data comprising one or more metrology measurement values associated with another substrate processed according to the second process at the manufacturing system (e.g., Fig. 6 #616: “Determine…process recipe modification data identifying one or more modifications to the process recipe and, for each of the modifications, and indication of a level of confidence that a respective modification to the process recipe satisfies a drift criterion for a second set of substates”).
18. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a set of one or more processing devices, cause the set of one or more processing devices to:
identify data associated with a first process performed for one or more substrates at a manufacturing system (e.g., Fig. 6 #610: “Receive data associated with processing a set of substrates at a manufacturing system according to a first process recipe”);
determine, based on the identified data, an amount of drift of a first set of metrology measurement values for the one or more substrates following a completion of at least one of the first process or a second process from a set of target metrology measurement values (e.g., Fig. 6 #616: “Determine, from the one or more outputs of the machine learning model: an amount of drift of a first of metrology measurement values for the first set of substrates from a target metrology measurement value”);
determine one or more modifications to a process recipe for the second process in view of the determined amount of drift (e.g., Fig. 6 #616: “Determine…process recipe modification data identifying one or more modifications to the process recipe”); and
update the process recipe for the second process based on the determined one or more modifications (e.g., Fig. 6 #620: “Update the process recipe based on a respective modification”, [0077]: “At block 620, processing logic updates the process recipe based on the identified modification. For example, the processing logic can [update] one more operations of the process recipe for the subsequent substrates to be processed at the manufacturing system”).
19. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18, wherein to determine the amount of drift of the first set of metrology measurement values from the set of target metrology measurement values, the set of one or more processing devices is to:
provide the identified data as input to a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is trained to predict metrology measurement values for substrates processed at the manufacturing system (e.g., Fig. 6 #612: “Provide the received data for processing the set of substrates as input to a trained machine learning model”); and
obtain one or more outputs of the machine learning model (e.g., Fig. 6 #614: “Obtain output(s) from the machine learning model”).
20. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19, wherein the machine learning model is a variational auto encoder model (e.g., [0049]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ummethala in view of David US 2018/0358271.
Ummethala does not explicitly disclose the features of claims 4, 5, 14, and 15.
David (in combination with Ummethala) discloses:
4. The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the data associated with the first process performed for the one or more substrates comprises:
providing a set of data associated with the first process as input to one or more dimensionality reduction functions (e.g., [0081], [0118], [0147]); and
extracting the data from an output of the one or more dimensionality reduction functions (e.g., [0081], [0118], [0147]).
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the one or more dimensionality reduction functions comprise at least one of a principal component analysis function, a partial least squares analysis function, or an auto encoder function (e.g., [0081], [0118], [0147]).
14. The system of claim 11, wherein to identify the data associated with the first process performed for the one or more substrates, the set of one or more processing devices is to:
provide a set of data associated with the first process as input to one or more dimensionality reduction functions (e.g., [0081], [0118], [0147]); and
extract the data from an output of the one or more dimensionality reduction functions (e.g., [0081], [0118], [0147]).
15. The system of claim 14, wherein the one or more dimensionality reduction functions comprise at least one of a principal component analysis function, a partial least squares analysis function, or an auto encoder function (e.g., [0081], [0118], [0147]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ummethala with David in order to reduce the number of input parameters for the algorithm of Ummethala, as taught by David (e.g., [0081]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-3742. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN A JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
09/23/26
Prosecution Insights